PHE KIAO-CHAU 
SETTLEMENT 



Published by 

CHINESE PATRIOTIC COMMITTEE 

New York City 

May, 1919 



THE KIAO-CHAU SETTLEMENT 
Contents 

Page 

1. A Plea for Fair Play and Justice . . . . i 

2. The Declaration by the Chinese Peace Delega- 

tion -4 

3. The Statement by the Chinese Press Bureau at 

Paris 7 







n^ 



«>o*f 



A PLEA FOR FAIR PLAY AND JUSTICE 

BY THE CHINESE PATRIOTIC COMMITTEE 
OF NEW YORK CITY 

It is with deep regret to state that the "Big Three," 
now assembled at the Paris Peace Conference, have 
definitely decided to transfer by treaty the Chinese 
territory of Kiao-Chau, formerly held, by Germany, 
together with certain railway and mining rights in 
Shantung to Japan without any stipulation as to 
when and how Kiao-Chau will be restored to China. 
There are many reasons why such a decision is un- 
just and contrary to the spirit of international law. 

In the first place, the decision is unjust. Under 
the banner of liberty the Allies have fought stead- 
fastly against oppression, barbarity, and cruelty. 
Carrying this sublime principle to its logical conclu- 
sion, the Allies assisted the subjugated peoples of 
Middle Europe not only in shaking off the yoke of 
their oppressors but in securing for them outlets to 
the sea, such as Danzig and Fiume. The same Allies, 
however, utterly refused to aid China, one of their 
active associates, in the recovery of a piece of terri- 
tory which is her own; besides, they handed it to the 
grasping Japanese. It is, therefore, palpable that 
the Allies have not squared the facts with what they 
repeatedly declared to stand for, namely, justice. 

Japan is an unprincipled nation. She has per- 
petrated innumerable notorious wrongs and cruelties 
upon the Chinese people in Chinese territory. If 
one spares a few minutes to read Karl Crow's book 
entitled "Japan and America," published in 1916, he 
will notice how Japanese soldiers stole goods from a 



wv 



Chinese peddler and murdered the policemen com- 
ing to his rescue; how Japanese smugglers terrorized 
and robbed a number of villages in Manchuria; how 
Japanese soldiers shielded organized bandits and 
aided them in resisting the arrest by Chinese authori- 
ties (pp. 241-251). The Japanese Government not 
only connived at the perpetration of such wrongs, but 
actually encouraged them by shifting every responsi- 
bility upon the shoulders of the Chinese Govern- 
ment. This is not all. The atrocities committed by 
the Japanese military authorities in Shantung while 
their soldiers were en route to attack Tsingtao would 
be a great shock to civilization if they were vividly 
depicted to the world. It is unthinkable that a nation 
with such a criminal record should be given the con- 
trol over any territory inhabited by a people with 
lofty ideas. In handing Kiao-Chau to Japan the 
Allies have done a great injustice not only to China, 
but also to humanity. It will handcuff the Chinese 
people and will impose upon them such cruelties as 
she had wantonly done in Korea and Formosa. The 
history of Japanese rule in Korea is replete with in- 
stances of a reign of terror. 

Secondly, the decision is contrary to the spirit of 
international law. Kiao-Cha'u is, and has always 
been, Chinese territory. It was leased to Germany 
under duress in 1898. This lease was automatically 
abrogated by China's declaration of war upon Ger- 
many in 191 7. China is, therefore, entitled to the 
restoration of Kiao-Chau. But it has been con- 
tended by the Japanese Government that China's dec- 
laration of war does not affect the status of Kiao Chau 
because it was made subsequent to the capture of that 
territory by Japan, and that Japan can hold it by 
military conquest. This contention is ridiculous. 
Kiao-Chau may be likened to a lost piece of property. 
So long as China retains the right thereto she can 
demand its return from the hands of any person 
who unlawfully holds it. The finder must return it no 



matter how he came into the possession of it. 
In leasing Kiao-Chau to Germany, China retained 
sovereignty thereover, and hence she holds the title 
thereto. Now the lease is abrogated. And the nat- 
ural and logical solution is to restore Kiao-Chau, in- 
cluding the harbour of Tsingtao to China. But 
Japan insists upon holding it by military conquest. 
It should be borne in mind that China is an ally of 
Japan in the broad sense of the term. Where does 
Japan derive the right to claim the territory from any 
moral or legal standpoints. If the Allies should 
establish a new rule of international law that an ally 
may hold the territory of another by military con- 
quest, then by analogy the United States would be 
entitled to the Argonne section in Northern France, 
Great Britain to the section from Lille to Dunkirk. 
Of course, such a new rule would be a mockery, but 
this is exactly what has been applied to the proposed 
settlement of Kiao-Chau. 

The facts set forth in the preceding paragraphs 
are simple and plain. On the strength of these plain 
facts we plead for fair play and justice. Every im- 
partial, unbiased and liberal-minded observer will look 
upon the proposed Shantung settlement as a mere 
travesty upon justice because it is neither based upon 
principles of equity nor upon rules of international 
law — it is the result of whims, caprices, and strong 
desire on the part of the Allies to please Japan. We 
have always been under the illusion that justice and 
righteousness would reign in the new world order; 
but after all it is neither justice nor righteousness, 
but might that reigns supreme. We apprehend that 
the proposed Shantung settlement might become a 
contributing cause of another stupendous cataclysm 
if nothing: is done to check it. 



THE DECLARATION BY THE CHINESE 
PEACE DELEGATION 

May 2, 1919 

The Chinese delegation has been informed orally 
on behalf of the Council of Three of the outline 
of the settlement proposed regarding the Shantung 
question. Under this settlement all rights to Kiao 
Chau, formerly belonging to Germany, are transferred 
to Japan. While Japan voluntarily engages to hand 
back the Shantung peninsula in full sovereignty to 
China, she is allowed to retain the economic privileges 
formerly enjoyed by Germany. 

These privileges, the delegation is informed, refer 
to the Tsing-tao-Chinan Railway, 280 miles long, the 
mines connected with it, and the two railways to be 
built connecting Shantung with the two trunk lines 
from Peking to the Yangtse Valley. In addition, she 
obtains the right to establish a settlement at Tsing-tao 
and, although the Japanese military forces, it is under- 
stood will be withdrawn from Shantung at the earliest 
possible moment, the employment of special railway 
police is permitted. 

Such being the outline of the proposed settlement, 
the Chinese delegation cannot but view it with disap- 
pointment and dissatisfaction. 

These German rights in Shantung originated in an 
act of wanton aggression in 1897, characteristic of 
Prussian militarism. To transfer these rights to Japan, 
as the Council of Three proposes to do, is therefore, to 
confirm an act of aggression, which has been resented 
by the Chinese people ever since its perpetration. 

Such a virtual substitution of Japan for Germany 
in Shantung is serious enough in itself, but it becomes 
grave when the position of Japan in Southern Man- 
churia and Eastern Mongolia is read in connection with 
it. Firmly intrenched on both sides of the Gulf of 
Pe-chili, the water outlet of Pekin, with a hold on the 
three trunk lines from Pekin and connecting it with 

4 



the rest of China, the capital becomes but an enclave 
in the midst of Japanese influence. 

Moreover, owing to China's declaration of war 
against the Central Powers on August 14, 1917, and 
the abrogation of all treaties and agreements between 
China and these powers, the German rights automati- 
cally reverted to China. This declaration was officially 
notified to and taken cognizance of by the allied and 
associated Governments. It is, therefore, significant 
that the Council in announcing the settlement of the 
Kiao-Chau-Shantung question referred to the rights 
to be transferred to Japan as 'the rights formerly be- 
longing to Germany.' 

It appears clear, then, that the Council has been 
bestowing on Japan the rights, not of Germany, but 
of China ; not of an enemy, but of an ally. The more 
powerful ally has reaped a benefit at the expense, not 
of the common enemy, but of the weaker ally. 

Besides, Shantung is China's Holy Land, packed 
with memories of Confucius and Mencius and hal- 
lowed as the cradle of her civilization. 

If it is the intention of the Council to restore it 
to China, it is difficult to see on what consideration of 
principle or of expediency can be justified the trans- 
fer in the first instance to an alien power which then 
'voluntarily engages' to hand it back to the rightful 
owner. 

Japan based its claim for the German rights in 
Shantung also on the treaty and notes of 1915, and 
the notes of 1918 with China. It is to be noted, how- 
ever, that the documents of 191 5 were agreed to by 
China under coercion of an ultimatum threatening war 
in case of non-compliance with the twenty-one 
demands. 

The notes of 19 18 were made by China as the price 
for Japan's promise to withdraw her troops, whose 
presence in the interior of Shantung, as well as the 
establishment of Japanese civil administration bureaus 



in the district, had aroused such popular opposition 
that the Chinese Government felt constrained to make 
the arrangement. 

The Chinese delegation understands that the Coun- 
cil was prompted by the fact that Great Britain and 
France had undertaken in February and March, 1917, 
to support at the Peace Conference the transferring 
to Japan of the German rights in Shar^tung. To none 
of these secret agreements was China a party, nor was 
she informed of their contents when invited to join the 
war against the Central Empires. The fortunes of 
China appear thus to have been made objects of nego- 
tiation and compensation after she had already defi- 
nitely allied herself with the allied powers. 

Apart from this, it is at least open to question how 
far these agreements will be applicable, inasmuch as 
China has since become a belligerent. The claims ap- 
pear, moreover, to be scarcely compatible with the 
Fourteen Points adopted by the powers associated 
against Germany. 

If the Council has granted the claims of Japan in 
full for the purpose of saving the League of Nations, 
as is intimated to be the case, China has less to com- 
plain of, believing, as she does, that it is a duty to 
make sacrifices for such a noble cause as the League 
of Nations. She cannot, however, refrain from wish- 
ing that the Council had seen fit, as would be far more 
consonant with the spirit of the League now on the 
eve of formation, to call upon strong Japan to forego 
her claims animated by a desire for aggrandizement, 
instead of upon weak China to surrender what is 
hers by right. 

China came to the conference with a strong faith 
in the lofty principles adopted by the allied and asso- 
ciated powers as the basis of a just and permanent 
world peace. Great, therefore, will be the disappoint- 
ment and disillusion of the Chinese people over the 
proposed settlement. 



If there is reason for the Council to stand firm on 
the question of Fiume, there would seem to be all the 
more reason to uphold the claim of China relating to 
Shantung, which includes the future welfare of 36,- 
000,000 souls, and the highest interest of peace in the 
Far East. 



THE STATEMENT BY THE CHINESE PRESS 
BUREAU AT PARIS 

May 4, 1919 

New light on the settlement of Kiao-Chau-Shan- 
tung question has made the Chinese delegation indig- 
nant. A member of the delegation stated that al- 
though three days have elapsed since the settlement 
by the Council was announced no details of the settle- 
ment had reached the delegation. While still waiting 
in suspense, the delegation has learned with surprise 
that clauses to be inserted in the peace treaty relating 
to Shantung go further than was even suspected. 

Japan is given everything Germany obtained from 
China by aggression, and more. She is given all the 
rights, titles or privileges concerning especially the 
territory of Kiao Chau and the railways, mines and 
submarine cables Germany acquired by virtue of the 
treaty of 1898, and of all other acts concerning the 
Province of Shantung. Japan is given all the rights 
in the Tsing-tao-China Railway, its branches and the 
mines attached thereto, the submarine cables from 
Tsing-tao to Shanghai and from Tsingtao to Chefoo, 
and all German public property rights, movable and 
immovable in the territory of Kiao Chau. 

Although China has the best title to these rights, 
which are all Chinese territory, not a word is said in 
the draft clauses as to what rights China may expect 
to recover for herself. It is entirely with Japan to 
say what she will be pleased to return to China, and 
what she will retain for her own enjoyment. 



The important fact seems to be altogether ignored 
that Shantung is a Chinese province, the territory of a 
partner in the war on the side of the allied and asso- 
ciated powers. The Tsing-tao Railway was built with 
Chinese and German private capital, while the line 
of 280 miles is entirely in Chinese territory. To sub- 
stitute Japan for Germany's rights in this territory is to 
endanger greatly the welfare and security of the 
Chinese Republic, because Japan is much nearer to 
China than Germany, and because she already claims 
a sphere of influence in Manchuria close to the north 
of Shantung. 

Reading the draft clauses together with the outlines 
the Council has proposed in settlement, it is clear that 
the Council makes China lose both ways. It has given 
Japan not only more than Germany had in Shantung, 
but also more than Japan claims from China in the 
treaty of 1915 and the notes of 1918. 

The Council's proposed settlement seems to sanc- 
tion, for example, the policing of the Shantung Rail- 
way, a privilege which Germany did not exercise nor 
claim, and it is apprehended it substitutes a permanent 
Japanese settlement under Japanese control and ad- 
ministration for a German leasehold limited to a fixed 
period of years. 

Again, by transferring to Japan all German rights 
in Shantung, as stated in the draft clauses, it also ap- 
pears to give Japan preferential rights which she did 
not claim from China, such as the supply of capital, 
materials, and technical experts in Shantung. 

The more the Chinese delegates study the proposed 
settlement, the less they understand its meaning and 
purpose, and the more they feel aggrieved. It will be 
difficult to explain to the Chinese people what the 
Peace Conference really means by justice. 



IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT 



Owing- to the absence of Mr. K. P. Wang-, the 
Secretary of the Committee, please address all 
communications temporarily to 

MR. Q. K. CHEN 

(Treasurer and Acting Secretary) 

logo Amsterdam Avenue 

New York City 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 914 600 9 









